data type for decimal number

[neha_chhatre]

which is the best format specifier(data type) if i have to work with
decimal number.

also please tell me the syntax for truncating a decimal number

please reply as soon as possible

[Richard Heathfield]

Harald van D?k said:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:22:37 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Keith Thompson said:

>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:
Actually, %x takes an int, not a hex. C doesn't have a hex type.

Actually, %x takes an unsigned int.

4.9.6.1 of C89:

d, i, o, u, x, X The int argument is converted to signed decimal ( d
or i ), unsigned octal ( o ), unsigned decimal ( u ), or unsigned
hexadecimal notation ( x or X );

Sure looks like int to me.

Interesting. C99 7.19.6.1p8:

o,u,x,X The _unsigned int_ argument is converted to unsigned octal (o),
unsigned decimal (u), or unsigned hexadecimal notation (x or X)
in the style /dddd/; [...]

Hmmm. Okay, so that's (perhaps) Yet Another Difference between C89 and C99
- and a potentially significant one, since it causes difficulty for those
wishing to program in the common subset of the two languages. I say
"perhaps" because my source doc for C89 is (pace, C.H.!) a mere draft, and
as such is suspect in cases like this. Does anyone have a kosher copy of
the "real" C89 in which they could check this out?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[ymuntyan]

On Feb 18, 11:46 am, Harald van D©¦k <true...@gmail. comwrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:22:37 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Keith Thompson said:

Richard Heathfield <[e-mail].i nvalidwrites:
Actually, %x takes an int, not a hex. C doesn't have a hex type.

Actually, %x takes an unsigned int.

4.9.6.1 of C89:

d, i, o, u, x, X The int argument is converted to signed decimal ( d
or i ), unsigned octal ( o ), unsigned decimal ( u ), or unsigned
hexadecimal notation ( x or X );

Sure looks like int to me.

Interesting. C99 7.19.6.1p8:

o,u,x,X The _unsigned int_ argument is converted to unsigned octal (o),
unsigned decimal (u), or unsigned hexadecimal notation (x or X)
in the style /dddd/; [...]

ANSI/ISO 9899-1990
American National Standard for Programming Languages - C

7.9.6.1 The fprintf function

o, u, , x, X The unsigned int argument...

[Richard Tobin]

In article <7J************ *************** ***@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Hmmm. Okay, so that's (perhaps) Yet Another Difference between C89 and C99
- and a potentially significant one, since it causes difficulty for those
wishing to program in the common subset of the two languages. I say
"perhaps" because my source doc for C89 is (pace, C.H.!) a mere draft, and
as such is suspect in cases like this. Does anyone have a kosher copy of
the "real" C89 in which they could check this out?

My copies of C89 (which are BSI standard BS EN 29899:1993, and the BSI
copy of the ISO draft copied from ANSI distributed in 1989-90 for
comments), both specify unsigned int for o,u,x,X. A 1984 draft has
wording similar to yours.

-- Richard
--
:wq

[ymuntyan]

On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, ymunt...@gmail. com wrote:

On Feb 18, 11:46 am, Harald van D©¦k <true...@gmail. comwrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:22:37 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Keith Thompson said:
>Richard Heathfield <[e-mail].i nvalidwrites:
>>Actually, %x takes an int, not a hex. C doesn't have a hex type.

>Actually, %x takes an unsigned int.

4.9.6.1 of C89:

d, i, o, u, x, X The int argument is converted to signed decimal ( d
or i ), unsigned octal ( o ), unsigned decimal ( u ), or unsigned
hexadecimal notation ( x or X );

Sure looks like int to me.

Interesting. C99 7.19.6.1p8:

o,u,x,X The _unsigned int_ argument is converted to unsigned octal (o),
unsigned decimal (u), or unsigned hexadecimal notation (x or X)
in the style /dddd/; [...]

ANSI/ISO 9899-1990
American National Standard for Programming Languages - C

7.9.6.1 The fprintf function

o, u, , x, X The unsigned int argument...

Another interesting thing:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/rat/d9.html#4-9-6-1
What the heck?

[Walter Roberson]

In article <7J************ *************** ***@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Harald van D?k said:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:22:37 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:
Actually, %x takes an int, not a hex. C doesn't have a hex type.

>>>Actually, %x takes an unsigned int.

>>4.9.6.1 of C89:

>>d, i, o, u, x, X The int argument is converted to signed decimal ( d
or i ), unsigned octal ( o ), unsigned decimal ( u ), or unsigned
hexadecimal notation ( x or X );

>>Sure looks like int to me.

>Interesting. C99 7.19.6.1p8:

>o,u,x,X The _unsigned int_ argument is converted to unsigned octal (o),
unsigned decimal (u), or unsigned hexadecimal notation (x or X)
in the style /dddd/; [...]

>Hmmm. Okay, so that's (perhaps) Yet Another Difference between C89 and C99
- and a potentially significant one, since it causes difficulty for those
wishing to program in the common subset of the two languages. I say
"perhaps" because my source doc for C89 is (pace, C.H.!) a mere draft, and
as such is suspect in cases like this. Does anyone have a kosher copy of
the "real" C89 in which they could check this out?

I have the official ANSI C89 hard-copy publication. It describes
the integer formats in two related paragraphs, the first of which
is a summary for all of the formats and uses "int", and the second
of which is specific to o,u,x,X and uses "unsigned int".

I consider the second of the paragraphs to be a refinement of the first,
with the first giving the overview and the second the specifics. Thus
I see no contradiction between versions: as far as I am concerned, both
C89 and C99 specify that %x and %X require unsigned int.
--
This is a Usenet signature block. Please do not quote it when replying
to one of my postings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block

[ymuntyan]

On Feb 18, 12:32 pm, [e-mail] c-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:

In article <7J-dnX6UeKWCWiTanZ 2dnUVZ8sDin...@ bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <[e-mail].i nvalidwrote:

Harald van D?k said:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:22:37 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <[e-mail].i nvalidwrites:
Actually, %x takes an int, not a hex. C doesn't have a hex type.
Actually, %x takes an unsigned int.
4.9.6.1 of C89:
d, i, o, u, x, X The int argument is converted to signed decimal ( d
or i ), unsigned octal ( o ), unsigned decimal ( u ), or unsigned
hexadecimal notation ( x or X );
Sure looks like int to me.
Interesting. C99 7.19.6.1p8:
o,u,x,X The _unsigned int_ argument is converted to unsigned octal (o),
unsigned decimal (u), or unsigned hexadecimal notation (x or X)
in the style /dddd/; [...]

Hmmm. Okay, so that's (perhaps) Yet Another Difference between C89 and C99
- and a potentially significant one, since it causes difficulty for those
wishing to program in the common subset of the two languages. I say
"perhaps" because my source doc for C89 is (pace, C.H.!) a mere draft, and
as such is suspect in cases like this. Does anyone have a kosher copy of
the "real" C89 in which they could check this out?

I have the official ANSI C89 hard-copy publication. It describes
the integer formats in two related paragraphs, the first of which
is a summary for all of the formats and uses "int", and the second
of which is specific to o,u,x,X and uses "unsigned int".

So this means that the ISO standard was actually different from
the ANSI one (because the ISO one has two paragraphs, one for 'i,d',
and another one for 'o,u,x,X')? Is there a list of changes somewhere?

Yevgen

[Richard Heathfield]

Walter Roberson said:

<snip>

I have the official ANSI C89 hard-copy publication. It describes
the integer formats in two related paragraphs, the first of which
is a summary for all of the formats and uses "int", and the second
of which is specific to o,u,x,X and uses "unsigned int".

I consider the second of the paragraphs to be a refinement of the first,
with the first giving the overview and the second the specifics. Thus
I see no contradiction between versions: as far as I am concerned, both
C89 and C99 specify that %x and %X require unsigned int.

Thank you, Walter. I have amended my C89 draft accordingly (because
otherwise I'll only make the same stupid mistake again!).

And, of course, my apologies to all, for posting misleading information
upthread.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[lawrence.jones]

Walter Roberson <ro******@ibd.n rc-cnrc.gc.cawrote :

>
I have the official ANSI C89 hard-copy publication. It describes
the integer formats in two related paragraphs, the first of which
is a summary for all of the formats and uses "int", and the second
of which is specific to o,u,x,X and uses "unsigned int".

That's interesting, *my* nearly-official copy (what was sent to ANSI for
publication) matches ANSI/ISO C90: the first paragraph is for "d" and
"i" and says "int", the second paragraph is for "o", "u", "x", and "X"
and says "unsigned int". Are you sure you're not misreading it? I
sincerely doubt that ANSI change the camera-ready copy.

-Larry Jones

You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well MINE are even WORSE!
-- Calvin

[Keith Thompson]

Mark Bluemel <ma**********@p obox.comwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>... unsigned long is very
often the same size as unsigned long, but it's not guaranteed.

Is this the Schroedinger C compiler we're talking about here?

Yes and no.

What I meant is that unsigned long is very often the same size as void*.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <ks***@mib.or g>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

ro******@ibd.nr c-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

In article <7J************ *************** ***@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>>Harald van D?k said:

>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:22:37 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrites:
>Actually , %x takes an int, not a hex. C doesn't have a hex type.

>>>>Actually, %x takes an unsigned int.

>>>4.9.6.1 of C89:

>>>d, i, o, u, x, X The int argument is converted to signed decimal ( d
or i ), unsigned octal ( o ), unsigned decimal ( u ), or unsigned
hexadecimal notation ( x or X );

>>>Sure looks like int to me.

>>Interesting . C99 7.19.6.1p8:

>>o,u,x,X The _unsigned int_ argument is converted to unsigned octal (o),
unsigned decimal (u), or unsigned hexadecimal notation (x or X)
in the style /dddd/; [...]

>>Hmmm. Okay, so that's (perhaps) Yet Another Difference between C89 and C99
- and a potentially significant one, since it causes difficulty for those
wishing to program in the common subset of the two languages. I say
"perhaps" because my source doc for C89 is (pace, C.H.!) a mere draft, and
as such is suspect in cases like this. Does anyone have a kosher copy of
the "real" C89 in which they could check this out?

I have the official ANSI C89 hard-copy publication. It describes
the integer formats in two related paragraphs, the first of which
is a summary for all of the formats and uses "int", and the second
of which is specific to o,u,x,X and uses "unsigned int".

I consider the second of the paragraphs to be a refinement of the first,
with the first giving the overview and the second the specifics. Thus
I see no contradiction between versions: as far as I am concerned, both
C89 and C99 specify that %x and %X require unsigned int.

I have the official ISO C90 PDF publication. Here's what it says:

d,i The int argument is converted to signed decimal in the style
(-]dddd. The precision specifies the minimum number of digits
to appear, if the value being converted can be represented in
fewer digits, it will be expanded with leading zeros. The
default precision is 1. The result of converting a zero value
with a precision of zero is no characters.

o,u,x,X The unsigned int argument is converted to unsigned octal (o),
unsigned decimal (u), or unsigned hexadecimal notation (x or
X) in the style dddd, the letters abcdef are used for x
conversion and the letters ABCDEF for X conversion. The
precision specifies the minimum number of digits to appear; if
the value being converted can be represented in fewer digits,
it will be expanded with leading zeros. The default precision
is 1. The result of converting a zero value with a precision
of zero is no characters.

(It's not a good PDF copy; there may be typos in the above.)

Does that not match the ANSI C89 standard?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <ks***@mib.or g>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"